AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE applicant has moved this application for review of the order passed by this Commission on 11 th August, 1997 rejecting the compensation application after considering merits of the case.
THE aforesaid order was passed by my learned Brothers Shri U.P. Singh and Shri R.K. Anand, who is Members of this Bench. Ordinarily, the Review Application has to be heard by the same Bench. However, since our learned Brother Shri U.P. Singh has resigned from service in the last week of December, 1998 and is not available as such, the matter is placed before this Bench as one of us (learned Member Mr. Anand) was a Member of the Bench which passed the aforesaid order on 11th August, 1997. Apart from the fact that the applicant has brought no new material on record and in absence of any new material, no review is permissible on the same facts and grounds on which the compensation application was filed in view of the binding ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1979 SC at P. 798, it has not been pointed out how the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 11th August, 1997 is erroneous.
It was observed in the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 11th August, 1997 that the share certificates were sent to the applicant by the Company. No attempt appears to have been made by the applicant to inquire with the Post Office as to what happened to the postal article through which the share certificates were sent by the respondent to the applicant. If the postal article containing such share certificates is found lost in postal transit, the applicant has not been able to show to us that an attempt has been made to obtain duplicate share certificates from the respondent and the respondent has not arranged for supply of duplicate share certificates. It cannot be gainsaid that duplicate share certificates are issued in accordance with the law in that regard.
BESIDES, the remedy for such grievances is available with the SEBI or the Department of Company Affairs. No attempt appears to have been made by the applicant for redressal of her grievances in that regard with the SEBI, or the Department of Company Affairs. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we think that it would not be possible for us to entertain this application for review of the order passed by this Commission on 11th August, 1997.
IN the result, the Review Application fails. It is hereby rejected. Review Application dismissed.